601
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The state of Wisconsin does not choose its state legislature in free and fair elections, and it has not done so for a very long time. A new lawsuit, filed just one day after Democrats effectively gained a majority on the state Supreme Court, seeks to change that.

The suit, known as Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, seeks to reverse gerrymanders that have all-but-guaranteed Republican control of the state legislature — no matter which party Wisconsin voters supported in the last election.

In 2010, the Republican Party had its best performance in any recent federal election, gaining 63 seats in the US House of Representatives and making similar gains in many states. This election occurred right before a redistricting cycle, moreover — the Constitution requires every state to redraw its legislative maps every 10 years — so Republicans used their large majorities in many states to draw aggressive gerrymanders.

Indeed, Wisconsin’s Republican gerrymander is so aggressive that it is practically impossible for Democrats to gain control of the state legislature. In 2018, for example, Democratic state assembly candidates received 54 percent of the popular vote in Wisconsin, but Republicans still won 63 of the assembly’s 99 seats — just three seats short of the two-thirds supermajority Republicans would need to override a gubernatorial veto.

The judiciary, at both the state and federal levels, is complicit in this effort to lock Democrats out of power in Wisconsin. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), for example, the US Supreme Court held that no federal court may ever consider a lawsuit challenging a partisan gerrymander, overruling the Court’s previous decision in Davis v. Bandemer (1986).

Three years later, Wisconsin drew new maps which were still very favorable to Republicans, but that included an additional Black-majority district — raising the number of state assembly districts with a Black majority from six to seven. These new maps did not last long, however, because the US Supreme Court struck them down in Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2022) due to concerns that these maps may have done too much to increase Black representation.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 84 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Finally.

I'm sure the Republicans will attempt to go crying to the SCOTUS, but they've already ruled that it's up to the states to decide. Hopefully this will be the end of the bullshit that is the Wisconsin legislative map and my home state can finally decide freely who represents them.

[-] buckykat 66 points 2 years ago

You think this SCOTUS will be consistent in its rulings?

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago

I think Roberts would decline to hear it. At least I hope some atom of integrity still remains in his body.

[-] buckykat 25 points 2 years ago

Remember, their recent statement that they don't need any ethics oversight was unanimous.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

While I agree with you, the 6-3 supermajority means a lone Robert’s vote doesn’t necessarily matter

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

He controls what comes before the court. He could deny the request and refer to the previous judgment.

[-] Maturin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

This is not true. The court votes on which cases to hear and a case only needs 4 votes to make it.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Each justice has a physical region where they are the gatekeeper in some sense. I believe the comment above is saying this case would come up in Robert's region and he could effectively refuse to bring it up for vote with the other justices.

[-] Maturin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

That’s not quite how it works. They each are assigned a circuit but that’s not for deciding which cases are heard. All appeals go to all 9 of them and if 4 of them decide they want to hear it, then they do.

[-] TeenieBopper@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

The guy who made up the major questions doctrine from whole cloth? Lol.

[-] Cobrachickenwing@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Roberts is just as bought and sold as Thomas. Roberts voted 100% against labor and public interest in all supreme court cases.

[-] themeltingclock@lemmy.world 62 points 2 years ago

So good to see WI get out from under this bullshit. If the people want (R)’s, let them get them fairly. Gerrymandering (in either direction) is bollocks.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 years ago

I think the whole concept of grouping voters by geographical location is a bad idea

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

The concept is often described as allowing politicians to pick their voters - its a recipe for something that looks like a democracy but is, in fact, where politicians are deciding which voters get represented before the first ballot gets cast.

[-] WigglyTortoise@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago

How would you do it instead? Do you feel the same about federal elections, in which voters are grouped by state?

[-] Asifall@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

For things like house seats where there are a dozen or more positions, proportional representation would probably be better. Unfortunately that system is so foreign to Americans I think it would be a tough sell.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Popular vote through and through. If you don't get majority votes, you don't deserve the seat.

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 51 points 2 years ago

I'm a broken record: any system built on the best case scenario is doomed to fail. Allowing politicians to draw voting districts when they have a conflict of interest is Tin Pot dictatorship tier.

[-] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

its amazing how often the politicians are put in charge of things that benefit them. They can vote their own salary, affect voting district, chose judges. It seems insane!

[-] kinther@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yep, you're not wrong

[-] BassaForte@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

As a Wisconsinite who voted for Janet...

LET'S FUCKIN GOOOOOOOOO!!!

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 21 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A new lawsuit, filed just one day after Democrats effectively gained a majority on the state Supreme Court, seeks to change that.

Protasiewicz’s elevation to the state’s highest court also gave Democrats a 4-3 majority (technically, Supreme Court races in Wisconsin are nonpartisan, but every recent race has pitted a liberal supported by Democrats against a conservative supported by the GOP), meaning that there’s now a very high likelihood that the state’s Republican gerrymander will fall.

The Clarke plaintiffs argue that partisan gerrymandering violates this anti-discrimination guarantee by allowing “a majority of the Legislature to create superior and inferior classes of voters based on viewpoint” — that is, by drawing maps that effectively give Republicans more voting power than Democrats.

Additionally, Wisconsin’s constitution includes a provision similar to the federal First Amendment, which provides that “every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects.” The Clarke plaintiffs argue that partisan gerrymanders violate this provision because, by giving less representation to Democrats, the state effectively retaliates against those voters because of their political views.

It is possible that the court will hand down a fairly narrow decision, which might require the noncontiguous districts to be redrawn but that does not reach any of the more philosophical questions about when gerrymandering crosses the line into unconstitutional discrimination.

It is equally possible that the new majority will hand down a more sweeping decision that lays out broader rules prohibiting partisan gerrymanders in the future.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] wth@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago

I gotta take my hat off to the GOP here. While both parties have gerrymandered, the GOP have taken it to the extreme. They will lock in their ruling majority (despite losing at the polls) in every state where they control the Supreme Court and legislature. They will become unassailable in those states.

They know they have to do this - they are (or will be) in the minority.

The Supreme Court did the USA a disservice because they could have tempered the worst excesses of the various states. But they have declared themselves hands off - let the states decide.

Sigh.

[-] notabird@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Here's hoping WI follows the way of MI.

[-] WizzCaleeba@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I don't understand everything in this article, but this sounds like great news! Go Janet! 🤘

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
601 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19607 readers
2453 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS